Orthodoxy is the only viable response to poshlost left

Are you seriously implying that Orthodox Christianity isn't taking the overwhelming majority of its theology from Paul and Pseudo-Pauls? Because last time I checked, the bulk of their New Testament bibles were still Pauline epistles.

Ethno-Phyletic Orthodoxy is the ONLY answer to the left

Every people should have their own Churches.

no fag the concept of biblical inerrancy can be vastly different from sect to sect and only proddies think the bible is perfect in form.

jesus christ.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/the_eastern_orthodox_approach_to_the_bible

>Dr. Constantinou: Yes, Bible inerrancy. Thanks, Kevin. First of all, the early Church always understood the book, the Bible, to be inerrant. The Fathers of the Church speak about it as inerrant, so it definitely [is] the understanding of the Church, because it’s inspired.

>Dr. Constantinou: Yes, we have to understand always, first of all, what is the purpose for which the biblical author wrote? Was he trying to teach us science or history or something like this, psychology? Or was he teaching us something about God? We have to always look at two important things. First is purpose; second is context. We would definitely affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, but that has to do with how you, again, understand it.

>Dr. Constantinou: Inspiration. I know you want to talk about inerrancy, too. We’ll have to address that also. The point is that inspiration is understood in the Church as a kind of enlightenment of the individual. The Holy Spirit enlightens their mind. So it’s not that it was filtered. It’s that the expression of the truths which are in the Scriptures, the human author was enlightened toward an understanding and toward an expression of those truths. Is that what you’re asking?

Mr. Allen: It is, and I want to put off Bible inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts for a little bit later, because we’re going to want to discuss that.

>Dr. Constantinou: Yes. Basically the Holy Spirit enlightens the person. It doesn’t dictate word-for-word if that’s what you’re getting at…

Mr. Allen: That’s what I was getting at.

...

So? They're still describing it as inerrent, as flawless. Maybe the underlying truth is filtered through the idiom and cultural expressions of the various authors, but they're still going to deny that the Bible has actual errors in it.

And since we have outright contradictions, like Matthew's clear inability to count, as well as his Davidic descent disagreeing with Chronicles, we have something more than just a cultural idiom masking a modern reader's understanding of such.

Not word for word flawless. The truths conveyed are inerrant, but the human medium means shit can get presented in really fucky ways, meaning it's not perfect in presentation.

But the supposedly perfect truths that are conveyed are in contradiction to each other. We have Paul's statement that blood is needed to achieve atonement, when even a cursory look at the Old Testament tells you that's baseless, as things like flour offerings, and sincere prayer, do achieve atonement for other people. That's more than a presentation error, either Paul, or whomever wrote books like Leviticus and Chronicles made fundamental errors about theology and how to clean stains from your soul.

The general trend right now is a move back to community and identity. In the future world only ethnic churches will thrive. Roman Catholicism, with its deracined, universalist collectivist message will be rejected. Protestantism with its individualistic liberal gospel will be spit out. Only ethnochristianity will survive, just as it always has from ancient times.

"Atonement" here is a lot more cosmic, it's not just a pardon. See De incarnatione by Saint Athananius. Or, just look up "satisfaction theory of atonement" (Catholic) and compare with the "Christus Victor theory of atonement" (Orthodox). Christ's blood does not just pardon you, it transforms you, for that is needed to reestablish a Paradise that won't fall.

Jesus = Marx
Peter = Lenin
Paul = Stalin
RCC = CP
Curia = politburo
Society of Jesus = communist internationale

Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't.

Orthodoxy is only called "ethnic" because it is very uncommon among West-Euro peoples.

but where's Mao and Trotsky?

I respectfully suggest you re-read Hebrews 9:22. and then Leviticus 5:11-13.

Luther = Trotsky
Mao = orthodox patriarch X

>and almost all things
>almost

>kαὶ χωρὶς αἱματεkχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις.
And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

kαθαρίζεται is different from ἄφεσις.

That's not the Majority Text

Meaning?

kαθαριζεται is in the Orthodox Greek text

Wow great idea OP, let's reverse the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution and start fighting religious wars in Europe again. genius!

>kαθαρίζεται is different from ἄφεσις.
Yes, in Orthodoxy it is much more. The latter is a simple juridical pardon, the former is an ontological repair

Notice the Orthodox never fought religious wars, only Catholics and Protestans did that

So your majority text isn't working off of the greek manuscripts extant?
So what? It's still an obvious innacuraccy, because it's very clear that "simple judicial pardon" was obtained without blood offerings.

>I'm so unbelievably stupid I've never heard of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire.

how long did it take you to think up that sentence?

Are you Jewish? I've never known anyone who wasn't Jewish to actually maintain an absolute sense was intended here Paul in light of his earlier qualification

Byzantium never launched a religious war except once against the Persians to recover the stolen cross

by* Paul

>Now out of arguments, he resorts to ad hominem.
No, I'm not Jewish. I've just actually read the Bible front to back, and done my bit to read them in the original languages. For some reason though, that gets me called "Jew" a lot.
> I've never known anyone who wasn't Jewish to actually maintain an absolute sense was intended here Paul in light of his earlier qualification
But it is most definitely an absolute sense. σχεδὸν is being applied to kαθαρίζεται, and you have a disjunction in the form of kαὶ to split out talking about ἄφεσις.

Pic related. And we'll of course ignore things like the attack on Bulgaria (Allied with the Kievan Rus over their shared Orthodoxy!) the war between Byzantium and Bohemund's crusader state, or the 12th century war with Hungary.

Asking if you're Jewish because your polemics are similar to Jewish polemics, is not an ad hom unless you think being thought of as Jewish is innately offensive.

kαὶ was always read here as parallelism (the standard style of Biblibal rhetoric), not as a contra.

None of those wars had anything to do with religious agression on Byzantine's part, in fact the Patriarch had earlier even told the emperor no martyrdom status would be granted to soldiers because dying in war is not pious, and killing in one is sin

>Asking if you're Jewish because your polemics are similar to Jewish polemics, is not an ad hom unless you think being thought of as Jewish is innately offensive.
No, it's an ad hom because you're arguing against my identity instead of my argument itself. Nothing in poist actually addresses my point at all, just a comment that "only Jews think this way".

>kαὶ was always read here as parallelism (the standard style of Biblibal rhetoric), not as a contra.
No it isn't. Most of the time kαὶ is separating one area that people are going to from a different area that people are going to. Where's the parallelism between Luke 1:9 and 1:10 between the priestly custom of incense burning and the people staying outside to pray? In Matthew 5:1-2, where's the parallelism between Jesus being surrounded by a crowd and him opening his mouth up to speak to them?

>none of those wars had anything to do with religious agression on Byzantine's part
Except for the part about getting together with your religious compatriots and beating up those mean nasty Catholics that had the temerity to live near you.
> in fact the Patriarch had earlier even told the emperor no martyrdom status would be granted to soldiers because dying in war is not pious, and killing in one is sin
You do realize that doesn't disqualify them as a religious war? That the definition of a "Bellum santcum" is "One caused or justified by differences in religion". I mean hell, if your only definition of a "Religious war" is one sanctioned by the supreme clergyman of your religion, then Islam has never once had a religious war, which is flat-out stupid to say.

So what is your overall point here? Christianity is wrong or Paul is wrong?

these are garbage posts

The OT pretty clearly states that blood sacrifices were made regularly by the Jews, idk what this user is talking about.

Can you really separate the two? All forms of modern mainstream Christianity are far more rooted in Paul's thought than they are in anything Jesus might or might not have said. Paul's stuff is the bulk of the NT by volume and is where you find all of the theology about the necessity of things like the death of Jesus on the cross, the framework of it all. If you say Paul is wrong, how can any form of Christianity
, except maybe some tiny fringe group that denies Pauline influence, be right?

I'm saying that Paul (or likely Pseudo-Paul,but that opens another can of worms about traditional authorship of various texts) claims that blood sacrifice is NECESSARY for atonement. The fact that it was done does not imply that it's necessary, and books like Leviticus openly state how it is not necessary for all people or all sins.

That's like saying that
>Americans fly on airplanes
>Therefore, flying on an airplane is necessary for being an American
>Anyone who has never flown in their life is not an American.
You're starting with an initially true fact, but you're not following the logic in any clear or coherent manner.

I think you're misunderstanding Paul, for all the reading you've done. If it were that easy to deconstruct, it would have never gotten off the ground to begin with.

Because formal logic is what decides mass movements. The Nazi party never rose to power because people were pointing out that the stab-in-the-back myth wasn't grounded in reality, and the American south didn't secede because there was no SCOTUS ruling allowing for secession. Or if we want to make it more religious, things like the Great Awakening never happened because nobody would possibly follow a movement that held to both Lutheran Sola Scriptura notions while at the same time making a whole lot of extra-biblical stuff up.

Now let's add in the facts that
>Most 1st-2nd century people couldn't read
>Most 1st-2nd century people who could read didn't have theological educations
>A lot of them wouldn't have an access to a full New Testament, let alone an Old Testament.
>The only people who care about this are likely ethnic/religious Hebrews
>Christianity, especially Pauline Christianity did enormously better among non-Hebrews than it did among Hebrews, and Hebrew forms of Christianity produced groups like the Ebionites who thought Paul was a blasphemer and a ruiner of Jesus's teachings.
People are rarely rational, and even when they are, can easily be subject to bad data.

Orthoposting is a disease.

Nah, it's 90% just Constantine dropping his trip but keeping his autistic screeching.

> start fighting religious wars in Europe again
I mean, it's bound to happen in Western Europe in the next 50 years whether we like it or not, when you export an extremist ideology from it's shitty desert land to your country for "humanitarian" reasons en masse

Except Leviticus and Hebrews state that it IS necessary

(Lev. 16:21–22) (Heb. 9:22).

Looks like you didn't read the verses I pointed to.
Chapter 5, starting with verse 11, will break lines for verses.
>And if he is too poor for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring for his offering for his sin, 1/10 of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering, he shall not put oil on it, nor shall he put any frankinsense on it, for it is a sin offering.
>And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as a memorial, and burn it on the altar, upon the offerings of God made by fire, it is a sin offering.
>And the priest shall make atonement for him for that sin that he sinned, and he shall be forgiven, and the rest of it shall be the priest's, as the meal offering.

Now, unless there's blood in flour, I'd say you have a problem.
>Leviticus 16:21-22.
The Yom Kippur offering is, SURPRISE, not the only sin offering out there.

An exception for an individual =/= exception for everyone.

You're making a giant assumption.

>An exception for an individual =/= exception for everyone.
Totally irrelevant. If blood is absolutely necessary for forgiveness, whatever the exception for the poorest segment of society would have to offer would include blood. It does not. Blood is ergo not strictly necessary for forgiveness, or the flour offering doesn't "work". Hell, offerings don't seem to be necessary for forgiveness, as we see in places like 2 Chronicles7:14.

>You're making a giant assumption.
No, I'm reading the text. We have a very clear case that involves forgiveness sans blood. You're the one making a basket full of assumptions that because most sin offerings include blood, blood is necessary for forgiveness/atonement, and that the author of Hebrews is actually familiar with the Old Testament, and that these scriptures are inerrant.

>Totally irrelevant
>If it proves me wrong it's irrelevant

Umm, no, that's not ow it works.

Leviticus 17:11 explicitly states it is necessary.

>For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

>No, I'm reading the text

And (((you))) definitely have a clear agenda with your interpretation of it and refusal to acknowledge points that prove your argument is a massive, incoherent assumption.

>In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb 9:22

>If it proves me wrong it's irrelevant
You haven't proven anything wrong. The existence of one sin offering with an animal does not invalidate the sin offering with flour, and therefore does not invalidate the point that "atonement can be achieved without blood". Like, this is basic reading comprehension.

>Leviticus 17:11 explicitly states it is necessary.
No, Leviticus 17:11 says why you shouldn't be drinking blood, because the soul is contained in it. It doesn't even make sense to claim it your way. In what way does a sin offering have God giving blood to people? Again, for about the 15th time, if blood is necessary, WHY DO THE FLOUR OFFERINGS GRANT ATONEMENT? WHY DOES THE PRAYER IN CHRONICLES MAKE ATONEMENT?

>Can't defend beliefs
>CALL HIM A JOOOO! JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>You haven't proven anything wrong

You haven't proven anything you've said right

>Hates God
>DURR YOUR BOOK IS CONTRADICTORY XDDD

Get out of here Hitchens.

Just to elaborate on this, let me give you a different example so that you can wrap your head around this.

>The IRS will accept tax payments in the forms of checks, credit card payements, or debit card payments.
>Therefore, you don't need to pay by check
>user, everyone I know pays by check
>Yeah, but you don't need to
>But look, Bob here paid by check, why are you ignoring countering evidence?
>Because someone over here paid by debit card
>Yeah, but Alice paid by check
>That's irrelevant
>NO I PROVED YOU WRONG, STOP DISMISSING STUFF THAT PROVES YOU WRONG AS IRRELEVANT!

I hope that can penetrate the solid bone of your skull and illustrate why you're wrong.

Nice false equivalence

Your games do get so very old, do you ever get tired of losing?

>You haven't proven anything you've said right
I've demonstrated with 2 very clear passages cases in which blood is not offered but atonement is given. That is pretty conclusive proof, assuming you accept the biblical framework to begin with.

>but atonement is given

Nope.

And you ignore one very clear passage where it IS explicit >without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

GG no RE fedora

>Nice false equivalence
It is entirely equivalent. You've been citing to verses about offerings with blood as proof that blood is necessary for atonement, ignoring other verses where you do not have blood offerings for atonement. You've been confusing the efficacy of a practice with its necessity. Ahh, who am I kidding, you've read a passage in the NT and are twisting everything you can to make it "right", regardless of the facts involved.

The only fact here is that you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are.

>Nope

Ok, then what the hell is "And the priest shall make atonement for him" in Leviticus 5:13 all about?

>And you ignore one very clear passage where it IS explicit
If you had bothered to follow the post chain, (which would involve reading comprehension, which I realize is a stretch for Christians), you'll see that my entire point has been is that the bible has contradictions about things like fundamental doctrine.

>Ok, then what the hell is "And the priest shall make atonement for him" in Leviticus 5:13 all about?

>the priest

Not God

>you'll see that my entire point has been is that the bible has contradictions about things like fundamental doctrine

Except it doesn't, only an idiot would think this.

Go tip your fedora somewhere among other troglodytes, maybe you can keep up with them since you can't here.

>Not God
>And he shall be forgiven,
You're just making yourself look stupider. You REALLY should read this stuff before you start talking about it.That verse, #13, is the concluding one for the entire rest of the paragraph, with all the actual blood offerings, goats and pigeons and whatnot. The priest is no more or less inolved in this one than in any other sin offering, you dunce.

>Except it doesn't, only an idiot would think this.

>Hebrews: You need blood to atone!
>But wait, there are instances in the Old Testament where you don't need blood to atone
>DER ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS U IZ STUPIAD!

OT doesn't apply, your argument was invalid from the start.

Jesus’ sacrifice, rather than being a punishment of sin, ought to be understood like a “cosmic sponge” whereby He absorbs all the sin of the world and takes it away from us. Otherwise, there is really no forgiveness in the Anselmian/Protestant paradigm of salvation. Instead, all there is is Jesus buying an indulgence for us from the Father (satisfying the Father’s wrath). Contrast this to the Parable of the Prodigal Son. There is no punitive nature there at all – yet there is a sacrifice. And that sacrifice is the joy of the relationship being made right again.

That makes it easier for the people there to get into Heaven 2bh

What are you then?

>But all the other Orthodox churches are more cucked than catholics
in what way?

I think he means in the way they're all national churches in one way or another, while the Catholic Church has maintained its independence. It even managed to survive the French Revolution and the creation of modern Italy.

That doesn't make any sense, why would the ethiopians be any more independent than the others? And what does being an independent state have to do with anything? the church isn't supposed to have temporal power as far as im aware. The catholics are infiltrated either way, Borgoglio serves a marxist PC agenda/

In what sense were those "religious wars"? Even Heraclius's offensive against the Persians wasn't a religious war really, though the rhetoric used was arguable of one. For the majority of its existence, Byzantium fought defensive wars or wars to recover recently lost territory. The only exception was arguably the expansion to the Armenian states.

Nice try, Satan, but everyone knows Jesus promised Peter that the Church which He founded on him would never be destroyed.

Are Orthodox Christians subhumans?

No

>Get along with your neighboring states of the same religion, ally with them
>Always seem to have problems with your neighboring states of OTHER religions, fight to the death!
>I'm sure they're not religious wars at all.

Nope

Its called Ethnic because Orthodox Churches are the Church of the Serbians/Georgians/Armenians and not of Serbia/Georgia/Armenia

These churches are here to benefit their people and not to serve the states unlike universalistic cucktholicism, and individualistic cucktestantism

Really? The Bulgarians were as much of a nuisance as anyone even after their Christianization.